Obsolete Names in Entomology. 325 



gation of real or supposed typical specimens, and concerning which 

 I will hereafter say a few words. By comparing the original col- 

 lection the names of a mere catalogue may, however, be equally 

 well ascertained ; I cannot, therefore, accept such a change on the 

 mere ground of a typical specimen being compared. 



It must be expressly stated, in this place, that I do not advocate, 

 or even accept, the change of a name, because the description of 

 its author is insufficient, if there can be no doubt as to the right 

 application of that name. This is not the question. A great 

 many of the generic and specific names of Stephens are universally 

 adopted irrespective of the merits of their descriptions, when there 

 was no doubt as to their right application. The question is solely 

 this — whether a universally known and generally adopted name 

 shall be changed because an older one exists, vs^hen that older owe is 

 unaccompanied by a sufficient description (or rather by no " descrip- 

 tion" at all)? I think 7iot ; and I doubt whether such names are 

 likely ever to be adopted by continental Entomologists, especially 

 as they must always remain somewhat doubtful to all who know 

 by experience that even the most accurate observers may occa- 

 sionally err in the determination of a typical specimen. 



In order to change a universally adopted name into an older one 

 it appears to me to be necessary, that it must be proved in each 

 individual case, that the description of the author of the latter 

 applies in reality to the species of which the name is to be changed 

 and toil only. Until this is done, I cannot assign to the older name 

 any greater claim to priority than to a catalogue name. And that 

 this can be done in but a very few of those cases in which Mr. 

 Waterhouse has restored an older name of Stephens or Marshara 

 may be proved by many examples ; I will, however, content 

 myself with illustrating it by two, — one bearing on a genus, the 

 other on a species. 



Mr. Waterhouse changes the name of the genus Chilopora, 

 Kraatz, (group of AleocharcB), which Kraatz had established on 

 Calodera longitarsis and rubicunda, Eric, and had well defined, 

 into that of Ischnopoda, Steph. On referring to Stephens's work 

 I find Ischnopoda characterized in these words : ** Head nearly 

 sessile, thorax longer than broad, elytra wide, body slender, 

 abdomen acute at tip, legs slender, tarsi, especially the hinder, 

 long, all five-jointed." According to my opinion it is an insult to 

 science to establish a genus of Aleocharce by such a diagnosis, — 

 which is so vague that it will apply to almost any Staphylinide, and 

 which does not afford the slightest character by which the genus 

 may be distinguished. Nevertheless Kraatz might have adopted 



